From your previous post:
They are not erroneous, but are, in fact, the implications of your view of conversion. You cannot escape these implications. If your view is true, then, yes, someone can repent and be baptized and have all their sins forgiven and supposedly be given new life in this (
Col 2.13), but, nevertheless, still be lost until he is baptized in the Spirit. Conversely, someone can receive the Spirit and still be lost until they are baptized. These scenarios happen all the time, so the implications of the traditional Pentecostal view of conversion are ever present. I look at the implications and think there must be a better way to understand the biblical data that doesn't open us up to a reductio ad absurdum argument.
The traditional view makes a mess of Paul's metaphor in
Rom 6. If someone has only been baptized, he apparently is still dead in the grave though Paul says in
Col 2 that he has been made alive when forgiven. Conversely, if he has been baptized in the Spirit but not baptized in water, well, then he has supposedly been raised from the grave, though he has not actually died and been buried yet. This doesn't make sense, which is why this view of conversion is never indisputably taught before Oneness Pentecostals in the 20th century.
I think it's important to note at this point that we do, in fact, have a lot in common in practice. In practice the outcome is the same: we lead people to repent, be baptized in water in Jesus' name, and to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the sign of tongues. But, of course, we understand it differently theologically. Nevertheless, I would regard us as on the same team.
Threaded Mode
